🔗 Share this article

Following a significant legal reversal, the Australian classification review board has overturned a earlier ruling that prevented Australian-based users from seeing recorded content of the violent event involving influencer Charlie Kirk. This challenge was initiated by Elon Musk's social media platform, which contested an directive sought by the online safety regulator.

Details of the Original Ban

Following the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in September, the eSafety commissioner applied to the review board to officially classify the circulating video. It first determined the content was "refused classification", a designation that empowered the regulator to instruct platforms to geo-block the videos for an Australian audience.

Elon Musk's company challenged the decision for a pair of videos related to the Kirk incident. It also appealed a comparable ban on a separate video—depicting the assault of Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte—which had likewise been deemed "unacceptable for distribution".

The Platform's Case and Board's Decision

Arguing its case, X contended that the Kirk video contained only a short moment of violence with no visible weapon. It was argued the recording was low-quality and the focus shifted rapidly from the victim to the bystanders.

X maintained the footage was not overly graphic, exploitative, or offensive, adding that it served as a neutral objective record of "a notorious public event of public importance that prompted extensive public discourse". The platform even compared the video and the historic film of the JFK shooting.

Most members of the classification panel concluded that, "despite the terrible nature of the event," the video did not reach a level that was exploitative, gratuitous, or offensive enough to justify a complete ban. However, they noted that a longer or clearer version with alternative commentary could have met that threshold. As a result, the panel revised the classification of the content to R18+.

A Dissenting Viewpoint

A minority on the panel disagreed, arguing the video was "a shareable video for the probable aim of entertainment and/or personal gain (such as likes, shares, or views)". They also argued the comparison to the Zapruder JFK film was invalid, as the Kennedy video was made public years after the event, "after public sentiment regarding it had subsided".

Response Following the Decision

Posting on its global government affairs account, X welcomed the decision.

"We challenged this decision to defend freedom of expression and the importance of access to information about issues of public interest. Our commitment remains dedicated to safeguarding these fundamental values."

Representatives for the safety regulator also welcomed the board's decision, but pointed out that the revised classification now means platforms "have obligations to ensure R18+ material is not accessible to users under 18".

Recent Developments on Violent Content

Separately, the regulator has not issued formal notices to platforms this week regarding disturbing videos from the recent Bondi beach terror attack shared across social media. The regulator stated that while the content were upsetting, they had not met the required standard for a "total ban" rating.

Instead, the companies have been instructed to apply sensitive content labels and screens, such as blurring, on this material in accordance with their existing community guidelines.